Handing over the Authority
- :Sheykh Radi al-Yasin
From what we have already mentioned, we have understood that Mu'awiya said to his son Yazid concerning the members of the House (ahl al-Bayt), peac be on them: "Indeed the right is their right.
Also we have known that Mu'awiya wrote to Al-Hasan to pave the way to peacemaking: "the matters are not settled without youy, and you are not disobeyed in a certain matter."
Also we have understood that Mu'awiya said after the Peace Treaty: "We have accepted it for authority."
Also we have known that Mu'awiya addressed the people from the pulpit of Kufa on the day when arrived in it: "I have not fought against you to make you pray, nor to fast, nor to make the pilgrimage, nor to pay Zakat (alms). Rather I have fought against you so that I might have power over you."
Also we have understood that Al-Hasan b. Ali denied the succession to authority before Mu'awiya, so the latter kept silent and did not answer the former.
Therfore we must know that when Mu'awiya accepted the Peace Treaty for authority, he denied it to be succession for Himself. That was when he said: "I have not fought against you to make you pray, nor to pay Zakat (alms)." Here Mu'awiya indicated that he was not the successor of religion. However, he was a king in the life in this world. He was indifferent to perfoming prayers and paying Zakat. Rather he indended to plot against the people. Mu'awiya said to Al-Hasan: "The matters are not settled without you." Also he said to his son Yazid: "The right is their right." Thus he recognized the high position of Al-Hasan and his autority which was not disobeyed in a certains matter. That was the position of the succession to authority. At that time it was necessary for Mu'awiya to keep silent when Al-Hasan denied his succession clearly and accused Him of lying when he claimed it for Himself without worthiness.
Accordingly, where is the handing over of the succession to authority which the historians claimed?
There is another thing that indicates clearly that Mu'awiya was not the successor. That was when he smiled at Sa'd b. Abu Waqas on the day when the latter came to the former and said to Him: "King, as- Salamu alayka!, and did not say: "Commander of the faithful."' The deep meaning of this phrase indicates cleary that Mu'awiya wanted to admit his error when he wanted to take the authority as war booty, not as means between the Muslims and their Prophet, may Allah bless Him and his family. For this reason Mu'awiya was worthy of the words of Sa'd, whom Mu'awiya was unable to trick, when he said to Him: "By Allah, I dislike to call Mu'awiya the Commander of the faithful as I called Him (ie, Ali) with that" He meant that Mu'awiya was inappropriate for this title that grew on the prohibited blood, the black discords, and the corrupt times.
In accordance with this explanation, Sa'd understood that Al-Hasan handed government to Mu'awiya and nothing else. This should be understood according to the language of the Koran (ie, the Arabic language) on the succession or the language of the two contracting parties (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) in the Peace Treaty. When the great Muslim researcher, Sayyid Amir Ali al-Hindi, may Allah have mercy on Him, studied the Peace Treaty, he called it the abdication from authority."1
Some of what Al-Hasan, peace be on Him, said to those who blamed Him for making peace with Mu'awiya is: "Abu Amir, don't say that I have humiliated the believers. Rather I hd hated to kill them for the authrity."2
Also Al-Hasan said to another companion of his: "I have made these (the Umayyads) quarrel with each other over the authority of the world, of which I am in no need."3
In this way we see that the two parties (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) agreed on that the battle for which they advanced against each other with their two enemies was for the authority. This means that the peace which they concluded in their treaty was for the authority.
For they made peace today with each other for what they diffrered over yesterday, In this viewpoint that was standing between the two parties, throught these declarations or on the day when they made peace with each other, there is no mentioning of the succession to authority whether concerning handing it over or receiving it.
Then, in these declarations, we find them (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) agreed on preferring one of them to the another for the posion without which matters would not be decided. It was the position that permitted Al-Hasan to say the followiing words concerning Mu'awiya, namely, it was as if that Al-Hasan appointed Mu'aiwya to an office while the latter was at that time present at the meeting of the former: He (Mu'awiya) is more knowledgeable in his affair and more thankful (to us) for appointing Him to this matter."4 He meant the matter of the authority.
I (ie, the author) wonder: Do you see the great difference between this position of Al-Hasan and what the pedantic ones imagined when they explained handing over the authority as handing over the succession to authority (Khilafa)?
We think that this idea was a mistake which an author made with intention. Then the authors learned it from Him without intention. In such a way many mistakes have been made in history. These mistakes have distorted the facts of history, changed some of its splendor, and doubled the efforts of the researchers. Then if you take care of your subject through checking its references, you will find that it belongs to one origin, and then if you check the origin, you will find it belongs to one origin.
As for the nominal succession, we don't oppose it even it was taken my Mu'awiya and those who claimed it for themselves or took it by weapon or inherited it from those who claimed and took it.
If it is true that the community permitted Mu'awiya to derive the succession to authority from the claim and the power of the weapon, then there will be no doubt in the term.
According to this idea, no wonder when Mu'awiya was the successor of the influence and authority, and Al-Hasan b. Ali was the successor of the prophet and the partner of the Koran.
No wonder when what has been mentioned in some texts, if we suppose that the narration is correct and safe from distortion, is the practical usage of the words (al-Khilafa) in its new meaning!
1. Amir Ali al-Mukhtasar Tarikh al-Arab wa al-Tamaddin al-Islam, p.61.
2. Ibn Kuthayr, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, vol.8, p.19.
Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin al-Amili, Ayan al-Shi'a, vol.4, p.52. Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak.
3. Ahmed Shahab al-Din al-Asqalani, al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Shahaba, vol.2, p.12.
4. Al-Bayqahi, al-Muhasin wa al-Masawi, vol.1, p.64.
Adopted from the book: "Sulh al-Hasan (a.s.)" by: "Sheykh Radi al-Yasin"
Share this article